T Nation

Eating Red Meat Linked to Cancer?

From NPR:

[i]“On a diet of 2,000 calories a day, which is average for a man,” Cross said, “the lowest category of red meat was equal to three thin slices of ham or less, per day, and the highest category was approximately equivalent to 10 thin slices of ham, or a quarter-pounder or a small steak or pork chop a day.”

As expected, Cross found more cases of colon cancer among the big meat eaters. But she also found about the same increase in lung cancer with big meat eaters, as well as increases in cancers of the esophagus and liver. Among men, there was an increase in pancreatic cancer.

Researchers speculate that cancer results from several chemical compounds that are found in the meat itself. But they also believe some of the compounds develop during the process of cooking.

“Compounds that are formed during high-temperature cooking techniques have been shown to damage DNA in animal and in vitro studies,” Cross said.[/i]

Sorry about the links this is one of my first times posting and I couldn’t figure it out so you’ll have to copy + paste them.

The NPR article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17122667&ft=1&f=1001
The Study it was written about:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040325

As someone who consumes an average of 2 pounds of red meat a day this kind of worries me. What does everyone think? Maybe substitute some chicken for a portion of the red meat?

…eat free-range, grass-fed organics if you can. they aren’t as shot up with chemical compounds as most are nowadays. also, don’t cook over high temps.

i had also read somewhere that using the herb rosemary on grilled meats somehow mitigate some of the carcinogens formed during the grilling process.

me - i eat a variety of meats - it’s the spice of life y’know…

Read this.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/08/30/colon-cancer-and-red-meat/

they’ll link anything to cancer nowadays. The main problem I see is the journal’s concentration on red meat without any mention of other foods that were eaten. Hmmm, typical average male/female between the ages of 50-70? A large number of elderly, from my experience, are rather set in their ways and do little to make dramatic changes to better their health. This includes integrating all the knowledge of what is and what isn’t healthy that we have today. The average red meat consumption of this group was 34.6g/1000 kcal. This is barely 1/10th of a persons calories. What about the 90%?

Ah, here’s a nice quote.
“In general, those in the highest quintile of red meat intake tended to be slightly younger, less educated, less physically active, and less likely to consume fruits, vegetables, and alcohol than those in the lowest quintile. In contrast, those in the highest quintile of red meat intake were more likely to have a higher total energy intake, a higher BMI, and more likely to be a current smoker.”
I really like how they recognize these variables that are clearly skewing their results, then continue as if their results weren’t tainted. I do appreciate their attempt to make a viable study, but studies like this almost seem like a waste of time due to their lack of scientific basis. Please correct me if I’m wrong, because I didn’t even begin to read the discussion portion, but all their accusations are being based on statistics and they give no biological or chemical reason for why red meat could actually even CAUSE cancer (seriously, I would like to know if they have a certain mechanism in mind for red meat causing cancer. I just spent a solid 20 min. typing this while I should have been studying for finals, and I can’t afford to read anymore!).

[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
Read this.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/08/30/colon-cancer-and-red-meat/

[/quote]

bah, you beat me to it.

[quote]Epimetheus wrote:
Brant_Drake wrote:
Read this.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/08/30/colon-cancer-and-red-meat/

bah, you beat me to it.[/quote]

It’s the drugs.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1679739

A little help for finals.

It would be interesting to see what the rest of these people’s diet consisted of. I would say, stereotypically at least for those not concerened with balanced diet, that the more red meat is consumed the less greens and ruffage is consumed. That would mean less antioxidants and cancer fighting foods being consumed.

Also, the study says that 2,000 calories is average for an adult male? In this society I can’t really believe that. That would mean there are a significant amount of men consuming LESS than 2,000 a day.

2,000 may be average RECOMMENDED, but actual? You can eat a fast food meal containing more than that and I would bet more than 50% of adult males have at least 3 a week.

I couldn’t tell from the study, but it didn’t sound like they controlled the amount of meat these people ate. and to say that the BIG meat eaters were only eating the equivelant to 10 thin slices of ham or 1 pork chop a day I think would be an understatement.

If you eat meat at every meal your way over that. Then to say that “only this much increases cancer” when some of these guys were quite possibly eating much more is a little misleading.

Am I way of base here?

[quote]Epimetheus wrote:
they’ll link anything to cancer nowadays. The main problem I see is the journal’s concentration on red meat without any mention of other foods that were eaten. Hmmm, typical average male/female between the ages of 50-70? A large number of elderly, from my experience, are rather set in their ways and do little to make dramatic changes to better their health. This includes integrating all the knowledge of what is and what isn’t healthy that we have today. The average red meat consumption of this group was 34.6g/1000 kcal. This is barely 1/10th of a persons calories. What about the 90%?

Ah, here’s a nice quote.
“In general, those in the highest quintile of red meat intake tended to be slightly younger, less educated, less physically active, and less likely to consume fruits, vegetables, and alcohol than those in the lowest quintile. In contrast, those in the highest quintile of red meat intake were more likely to have a higher total energy intake, a higher BMI, and more likely to be a current smoker.”
I really like how they recognize these variables that are clearly skewing their results, then continue as if their results weren’t tainted. I do appreciate their attempt to make a viable study, but studies like this almost seem like a waste of time due to their lack of scientific basis. Please correct me if I’m wrong, because I didn’t even begin to read the discussion portion, but all their accusations are being based on statistics and they give no biological or chemical reason for why red meat could actually even CAUSE cancer (seriously, I would like to know if they have a certain mechanism in mind for red meat causing cancer. I just spent a solid 20 min. typing this while I should have been studying for finals, and I can’t afford to read anymore!).[/quote]

Much better put than my post. Wish this woulda come through before I posted, then I wouldn’t have.

[quote]Brant_Drake wrote:
Epimetheus wrote:
Brant_Drake wrote:
Read this.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/08/30/colon-cancer-and-red-meat/

bah, you beat me to it.

It’s the drugs.

http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1679739

A little help for finals.[/quote]

been taking vinpo and oxi for a little over a month now, and I think it’s safe to say my brain works better than it ever has. At first, I was skeptical of the vinpo, but I’ve found it easier to retrieve information recently than I used to, so I’m definitely a proponent now. I’d like to grab some moda one of these days, but that’s a lot of cash, which I don’t have.

[quote]Epimetheus wrote:
they’ll link anything to cancer nowadays. The main problem I see is the journal’s concentration on red meat without any mention of other foods that were eaten. Hmmm, typical average male/female between the ages of 50-70? A large number of elderly, from my experience, are rather set in their ways and do little to make dramatic changes to better their health. This includes integrating all the knowledge of what is and what isn’t healthy that we have today. The average red meat consumption of this group was 34.6g/1000 kcal. This is barely 1/10th of a persons calories. What about the 90%?

Ah, here’s a nice quote.
“In general, those in the highest quintile of red meat intake tended to be slightly younger, less educated, less physically active, and less likely to consume fruits, vegetables, and alcohol than those in the lowest quintile. In contrast, those in the highest quintile of red meat intake were more likely to have a higher total energy intake, a higher BMI, and more likely to be a current smoker.”
I really like how they recognize these variables that are clearly skewing their results, then continue as if their results weren’t tainted. I do appreciate their attempt to make a viable study, but studies like this almost seem like a waste of time due to their lack of scientific basis. Please correct me if I’m wrong, because I didn’t even begin to read the discussion portion, but all their accusations are being based on statistics and they give no biological or chemical reason for why red meat could actually even CAUSE cancer (seriously, I would like to know if they have a certain mechanism in mind for red meat causing cancer. I just spent a solid 20 min. typing this while I should have been studying for finals, and I can’t afford to read anymore!).[/quote]

Nicely said Epimetheus. And for anyone whom has ever taken a statistics class, these things always remind me of how almost all statistical analysis in magazines, papers, etcetera are bias and void of concrete data. Severely worded and altered to make a “point.”

I eat red meat but I don’t eat nearly as much as you do, 2lbs a day sure is a good reason to worry about cancer.

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
I eat red meat but I don’t eat nearly as much as you do, 2lbs a day sure is a good reason to worry about cancer.[/quote]

You do understand that we just got done refuting the fact that red meat causes cancer, right? Just checkin’.

I just read the same article online and then made a beeline to this forum so I can get the straight dope on this issue.

I’m breathing a sigh of relief because I just ordered a ton of buffalo, antelope, and bison meat :slight_smile:

Anyone ever try python meat (no jokes…lol)? The stuff is expensive! Like $40/lb!

Anything processed will increase the risk of cancer as well, its all those nitrites and shit. Also overcooking your food can be bad. I try to help my body out by feeding it vitamin c and e.

[quote]1BADMF wrote:
I just read the same article online and then made a beeline to this forum so I can get the straight dope on this issue.

I’m breathing a sigh of relief because I just ordered a ton of buffalo, antelope, and bison meat :slight_smile:

Anyone ever try python meat (no jokes…lol)? The stuff is expensive! Like $40/lb![/quote]

That’s some wacky meat there…a hotdog is about as adventurous as I get.

That protein power link was interesting. However, I read his most recent article on why you should eat grass-fed beef and here’s a quote:

He’s clearly referring to a “medical study” to prove a point even though he states in his other article about red meat that most medical studies are hogwash. Which is it? Seems a little inconsistent and he’s being selective about studies, probably only mentioning ones that back his own beliefs.

it seems nowadays everything causes cancer or some type of illness/disease yet theres always something or someone to contradict it. you know what, just live your fucking lives. if you want to eat red meat then do so, there is no benefit to panicing about every little health scare that comes out. i eat red meat and will continue to do so aslong as it fuels me to my physical goals.

to the OP: T-Nation is probaly the least likely place youll ever find anyone to support the theories or research that conclude to any type of negative attributes associated with meat or protein in nearly any way, shape, or form.

There’s a study done in Japan of eating sushi and sashimi (raw fish) and its relationship with stomach cancer. Very alarming. I will try to translate it to english.

Now
Eating red meat linked to cancer
Eating raw fish linked to cancer

Future
Eating linked to cancer

Cancer linked to cancer